Stefan Xenos <sxenos@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: >> I meant the project's history, not the meta-graph thing. > > In that case, we agree. The proposal suggests that "origin" should be > reachable from the meta-graph for the cherry-picked commit, NOT the > cherry-picked commit itself. Does that resolve our disagreement, or is > reachability from the meta-graph also undesirable for you? Sorry, I confused myself. Yes, I do mind that the "origin" thing in the meta history to pin the old commit whose contents were cherry picked to create a new commit, which is separate from the old commit that was rewritten to create a new commit. The latter (i.e. the old one) I do not mind to get retrieved when such a meta commit is fetched, and all of us of course would want the new one, too (which is the whole point of adding the meta commit to help other commits built on the old one migrate to the new one). But I simply do not see the point of having to drag the history leading to "origin", and that is why I am moderately against recording "the change in this came from that commit via cherry-pick" in a meta commit.
